This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

Are we to understand, that if you considered there to be a "Need for this Here", it would then be acceptable?

We're having a good discussion right now, do you have a problem with that?

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS. #MAGA

Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

Originally Posted by Somerville

No it does not, it adds stipulations, restricting the actions of Congress without removing the initial statement which applies to the "several states". All of the first ten amendments are 'additive' to the original requirements found in the Constitution with more precise stipulations as to the authority of Congress and the federal government as a whole.

Nonsense. Amendments, by definition, alter by either adding, changing or deleting parts of the original text of the constitution. The first 10 amendments are no different than the next 17 in that respect, some of the amendments even modify other amendments as well as the original base document.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

Nonsense. Amendments, by definition, alter by either adding, changing or deleting parts of the original text of the constitution. The first 10 amendments are no different than the next 17 in that respect, some of the amendments even modify other amendments as well as the original base document.

What is your legal evidence that the 1st amendment overrules this requirement in the Constitution? Let me show you some precedence that it took me a few minutes to find on wikipedia .

In 1992, Herb Silverman was a mathematics professor at the College of Charleston, who applied to become a public notary. Silverman is an atheist and had earlier run for the post of Governor of South Carolina.[3] His application was rejected after he crossed off the phrase "So help me God"[4] from the oath, as was required by the South Carolina State Constitution.[5] Silverman filed a lawsuit naming Gov. Carroll Campbell and Secretary of State Jim Miles as defendants.[6] After a lower court passed a ruling in favor of Silverman, the state appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the case was not about religion.[7]

The South Carolina Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision[2] ruled that Article VI, section 2 ("No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution") and Article XVII, section 4 ("No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution") of the South Carolina Constitution[1] was in violation of the First Amendment protection of free exercise of religion and the Article VI, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution banning the use of a religious test for public office.[8]

In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso as a notary public. At the time, the Maryland Constitution required "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" (Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 37) in order for a person to hold "any office of profit or trust in this State" (ibid.).

Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court, only to be rebuffed; the Circuit Court rejected his claim, and the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the requirement for a declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office was self-executing.

The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Court had previously established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. ... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

So even if the First amendment overrules the requirement mentioned in the OP(it doesn't), the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions that these kinds of things violate the 1st amendment anyway. There you're argument is irrelevant

So even if the First amendment overrules the requirement mentioned in the OP(it doesn't), the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions that these kinds of things violate the 1st amendment anyway. There you're argument is irrelevant

What? Your own "legal evidence" supports my position as ALL of these cases cite the 1st amendment as well as confirm it overrides even the OP cited federal requirement in the U.S. constitituion the important part (that I have copied) from YOUR last SCOTUS decision noted follows: {...neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."}

Last edited by ttwtt78640; 05-30-12 at 11:46 PM.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

Originally Posted by Somerville

"Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States"

from the Torcaso decision

The language you quoted actually alludes to the technical reason why the first amendment (and most of the Bill of Rights) applies to the states. I've put the important part in bold.
It's referencing a concept called incorporation. I've posted the wiki link below, but the basic idea is that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment includes the basic liberties provided in the first 8 amendments in the bill of rights. The first case to discuss this concept was Twining v New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

I believe that this is one of those red flag laws and by that I mean those sort of laws that came out when the automobile was new and sharing the road with horse and buggies. Those laws are not in effect.

An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

If our rights come from our Creator, as recognized in our founding document, and a person holding office does not recognize our Creator, how can they recognize the rights? What they view as the source of our rights would conflict with where our founding document says they originate from.

Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

Originally Posted by Shadow Serious

I believe that this is one of those red flag laws and by that I mean those sort of laws that came out when the automobile was new and sharing the road with horse and buggies. Those laws are not in effect.